9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 9X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are of the considered view that in the interest of justice, assessee is entitled to be provided with adequate opportunity of being heard, hence impugned orders passed by the CIT (A) are set aside and remanded back to the CIT (A) to decide afresh after providing an opportunity of being hard to the assessee.- Appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. - Early Hearing Application Nos.13, 14 & 15/Del/2019 (in ITA Nos.2232, 2233 & 2234/Del./2018) - - - Dated:- 25-2-2019 - Vice President, Shri G.D. Agrawal And Shri Kuldip Singh, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Shri Umesh Seth, Advocate For the Revenue : Shri S.L. Anuragi, Senior DR ORDER PER BENCH : Keeping in view the facts inter alia that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion. 4. That the order passed by the Ld. CIT (A) u/s 250 of the Act is perverse to the provisions of the law and to the facts of the case, because of not following the provision of section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which states that order of the Commissioner (Appeals) disposing of the appeal shall be in writing and shall state the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reason for the decision. 5. That the Ld AO has erred in making addition of ₹ 91,05,481 U/s 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 6. That the ld. AO has erred in making addition of ₹ 4,32,898 on account of unexplained expenditure on balances written off. ITA NO.2233/DEL/2018 1. That the impugned order of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1. That the impugned order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter refer to Ld. CIT (A)] dated 29.12.2017 is bad in law and on facts. 2. That the order of the Ld. CIT (A) deserves to be set aside as the assessee was not allowed adequate opportunity of being heard. 3. That the order passed by the Ld. CIT (Appeals) under section 250 of the Income Tax Act,1961 is bad in law and not justified because Ld. CIT (A) has dismissed the appeal simply on account of non-prosecution of the appeal by the appellant without appreciating the judgement of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in case of CIT (Central) Nagpur vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF), [2016] 69 taxmann.com 407 (Bombay), where it has been held that law d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee. Similarly, in AY 2014-15 (ITA No.2234/Del/2018), AO framed assessment u/s 143 (3) of the Act by making addition of ₹ 894/- on account of interest in the nature of penalty incurred by the assessee on account of delay in deposit of TDS and made addition of ₹ 8,64,371/- on account of making disallowance of expenses claimed by the assessee and thereby assessed the total income at ₹ 6,92,827/-. 4. Assessee carried the matter before the ld. CIT (A) by way of appeals who has dismissed the appeals ex parte vide impugned orders. Feeling aggrieved, the assessee has come up before the Tribunal by way of filing the present appeals. 5. We have heard the ld. Authorized Representatives of the parties to the appeal, gone throu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
